Sarah Palin said she wasn't surprised at Rick Santorum's success in Iowa, and warned that the GOP should not take Ron Paul's supporters lightly.

Speaking on Fox News before Iowa's final numbers were in, she called Santorum "spot-on" with his policies toward Iran and praised his "social conservative" positions.

Her strongest comments came for Paul, however, saying "the GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters after this" because "a lot of Americans are war-weary and we are broke" and Paul has reached that constituency well. She warned that the GOP "better work with them."

I don’t think anybody (besides the establishment neocons) hate Paul for not wanting to go to war at the drop of a pin, but for his nutjob positions such as not having Israel as an ally and not caring if Iran gets nukes.

Okay so she makes ONE comment about not alienating a certain group of voters though she has NEVER said anything positive about him except aspects of his economic policy and suddenly she’s a Paulbot? That makes absolutely no sense whatever. Also, unless this is the first interview you’ve ever heard or comment she’s make via facebook or twitter, you’d know she’s paid compliments to every candidate.

Cindie

13
posted on 01/04/2012 1:25:57 PM PST
by gardencatz
(I'm lucky enough to live, walk & breathe among heroes! I am the mother of a US Marine!)

I agree with you. I first noticed their tactic during the 2008 primaries, when Google paid campaign workers to go in to New Hampshire and promote Wrong Paul. I truly wonder where his abundant funding comes from.

I’ve never supported Ron Paul for president before, he has run several times and I’ve always support someone else even thou he is my Congressman. This time I can support him or Newt, things are that bad.

Those wanting Ron Paul supporters to join with them, in favor of someone else, need to divide the Ron Paul supporters - separating the “wheat from the chaff”;

by appealing to the economic-Libertarians and those who agree with Paul’s general concern for our personal Liberty (we can at least ask ourselves if everything about our post 9/11 national security regime fully respects our essential Liberty?),

and not by trying to appeal to the Paul supporters among the 9/11 Truthers, the antiwar enthusiasts, or the transcendental-mediators and isolationist peace-niks.

The answer is simple. Wrong Paul and the libertarians have their own party, the Libertarian Party. That is where they belong, but they have viewed GOP as a convenient vehicle to get their candidates elected to office, Rand Paul being one prime example. Have a look at Campaign for Liberty, if you have not already.

It is fundamentally dishonest on the part of adamantly anti-war, anti-military, anti-Israel, isolationists like Wrong Paul and the Libertarians to pose as GOP.... WHEN THEY ARE NOT.

What Palin is declaring is an aggressive campaign of infiltration of the Republican Party, which FReepers have experienced at the local and state levels, as well as within Tea Party groups.

The LP is where far right meets far left, in a particularly nasty and un-American fashion, in my opinion.

Half of those "20-plus percent" of the "voting public" that voted for Paul would vote for Kookcinich in the Democrat Primary, too.

The infiltration of Lefty's in the Paulbots is rampant, and those who are "aged Hippies" follow The Ralien. He has no clue on Foreign Policy, Defense, or personal responsibility. Legalizing pot, and other drugs, is NOT Presidential OR Conservative, IMHO.

While I am no fan of Sarah Palin, she is right on this one... but for different reasons: The Reagan Coalition had the support of those who are civil-libertarian minded. He sprung from the Goldwater wing of the Republican Party, which, while not the same as Libertarianism, is very palatable to Libertarians. And thereby, Goldwater Libertarians are a necessary component of Conservatism.

I have said here before that civil-libertarianism and the Judeo-Christian ethic are what should inform the conscience of every conservative: Libertarianism without the Judeo-Christian ethic will inevitably wind up in anarchy... and The Judeo-Christian ethic without civil-libertarianism will inevitably slide into Christian Socialism.

While I am no Paul fan either, I can see what our civil-libertarian minded FRiends see in him. The difference between Reagan Conservatism and Neo-conservatism is basically the lack of civil-libertarianism.

42
posted on 01/04/2012 1:40:29 PM PST
by roamer_1
(Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)

im not just jumpin with joy, but paul is better than the other clowns we have. i wished palin would have ran, i would have been one of her biggest supporters, but shes not and i just think paul is more honest that the other rino scumbags. Milt, newt, perry, rick, are liberal rinos and there record shows it..

I think Palin is assuming that Paul supporters are Republican, this is where I disagree with her. Paul supporters are mostly Dems who are voting for him because they know if he is the nominee Obama wins in a landslide. Alienating Paul supporters doesnt bother me at all, since they are all a bunch of anti Semites anyway. I could give a rats behind what they think

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.